Unsorted FBI Documents

Attachment to Independent Case Review Report
For CDRU # 7366 Case file # 95-230616.

Material Examiner: Malone (RO)

Remarks :

Case resulted in a guilty plea, no

673

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fibers

Review commenced at: 10:15 AM (Time), 11/08/01 (Date)

File#: 95-230616

Laboratory #(s): 90508075

Examinees) & Symbols

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

RQ

XD

□

D

□

QW

□

Xo

□

□

□

□

□

□

Materials Reviewed

Trial testimony transcript(s) of: no transcript

Testimony Date(s): Pages:

Laboratory Reports):

Laboratory Number

90508075

Date: July 30, 1979

Laboratory Number

Date:

Laboratory Number:

Date:

Examiner Bench Notes of:

RQ and unknown technician

Laboratory Number

90508075

Was any other material reviewed? Xo Yes

□ No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: submitting agency letter dated 5- 1-82

Results of Review

File#: 95-23 0616 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1

Review of Laboratoiy Reports) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or oa
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

1) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the
methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination^)?

□ Yes □ No X □ Unable to Determine

2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory reports) supported and adequately documented in

the bench notes? □ Yes Xa No □ Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

Xd Transcript not available.

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory reports)? □ Yes □ No n Unable to Determine

4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes? □ Yes o No a Unable to Determine

5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? □ Yes □ No □ Unable to Determine

Initials:

are used that are difficult to interpret. The hairs recovered from the Q item are marked as "SFC" or "NSFC".
Presumably, this means "Suitable for Comparison" and "Not Suitable for Comparison", but there is no
documentation as to why these some of these hairs are not suitable. The technician does not document the
recovery of hair from the Q item.

Review completed at: 10:30 AM (Time), 11/08/01 (Date)

Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): 0.25 hr.

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review
are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of ^ 3 pages.

1 1/08/2001
(Date)

pencil instead of ink Abbreviations

#2: Documentation is poor. The notes are not dated or initialed and are